Two modalities to enhance wound healing that have been disclosed in the art are low level light therapy (LLLT) and bioelectric therapy. Each of these modalities has individually shown value in accelerating the healing of wounds. Low level light therapy utilizes light in the 600 to 1000 nm wavelength band to stimulate the biological healing process. Bioelectric therapy provides a device in direct contact with a bodily fluid to drive a small, constant and direct current of 1 to 10 microamps in the conductive bodily fluids of the wound to similarly stimulate wound healing. A recent bioelectric stimulation article with references has been published by Dr. Andrew L. Blount et. al in the Journal of Burn Care Research 2012; volume 33; pages 354-357, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. A bioelectric stimulation product for wound care currently on the market is the Procellera™ Wound Dressing by Vomaris Innovations (www.vomaris.com).
Weaknesses of bioelectric therapy are the requirement for contact by the component elements of the device with a conductive bodily fluid in the vicinity of the wound, and the minimal depth of therapeutic stimulation. Bioelectric stimulating devices are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,457,667, 7,662,176, 7,672,719, 7,813,806, and 7,904,147. These patent disclosures require contact of the biological fluid with the electrodes to complete a current path and enable DC current to flow between the positive and negative electrodes of the device. This presents numerous technical weaknesses, including the potential deleterious effects of temperature on the level of current, the potential build up higher impedance material on the electrodes that can affect the level of current, the discharge of the electrodes over time (they are batteries), and the effect of any changes in “wetting” of the electrodes that affects the level of current.
Weaknesses of low-level light therapy are a lack of electronic stimulation and the dependence on stimulating chromophores. Conventional light therapy devices typical have limited and/or poor control of the light dosage. The delivery of light to the wound site is typically cumbersome when using conventional light therapy devices in the form of wands, screens, helmets, etc. Examples of such light therapy pads are disclosed in US Publication 2007/0233208, U.S. Pat. No. 6,096,066, U.S. Pat. No. 6,290,713, and US Publication 2006/0173514), the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties. These disclosed light therapy pads each suffer from one or more of the following: inadequate control of light dosage, impractical means of controlling potential heat buildup between the light therapy pad and the treated tissue; limited flexibility; lack of a smooth pad surface for contacting the skin; mis-shaped to match a specific anatomical site to achieve a specific therapeutic outcome; and lack of a simple and practical means of attaching the light pad to the desired anatomical site.